One

That is, people in poorest, rural Africa who have malaria also have a strong response on the Viral Load test.

Note: ‘Viral Load’ (or PCR) is the test used to tell convince certain people (_the brown, gay and poor_), that they have a fatal sex disease (which they affix with the well-known moniker “Aids”), and must start taking strong drugs.

Two

The New England Journal of Medicine reports that Nevirapine, that life-saving (life-ending) drug, is not actually life-saving. (Here)

They report that the drug, which has and does cause fatal skin death and fatal organ failure in the men, women and infants dosed with it, also causes “significantly higher rates of virologic failure“ than those who were given a placebo (no drug at all).

This means that after you give the drug, you produce higher results on the Viral Load test, which is interpreted as more “virus.”

So what does a “life-saving” drug that also kills actually do when it no longer is “life-saving?”

Three

The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that the Viral Load test is nearly worthless for diagnosing Aids. (Here )

The study shows that these tests are unable to predict T-Cell loss (_used to define “Aids_”) in patients, the very job they are used for. Patients’ T-Cell levels only relate to high (positive) Viral Load test response 4% to 9% of the time.

“Plasma HIVRNA (viral load) measurements predict no more than 9% of the rate of CD4 cell loss in untreated HIV-positive individuals….viral load measurements [should] play a diminishing role in informing decisions regarding when to start antiretroviral therapy.”

The Viral Load test is used by Aids, Inc. to “diagnose HIV infection“. But it only predicts that thing that defines Aids, at most, in 9% of cases. So “HIV causes Aids,” we’re told, but only about 9% of it.

What causes the rest? See “fatal skin death” in the entry above.

Four

The New York Times reports that Viral Load Tests are, essentially, pure garbage, and are read according to “100 different protocols” by the labs that interpret them. (Here)

The story details how doctors no longer feel the need to actually find the particles they blame for disease, when they have “quick” short-cuts like molecular tests.

The tests, however, do not work to diagnose illness. They work by picking up and wildly amplifying minor signals; these signals are based on copies of tiny bits of a genome, that only need to correspond enough to a synthetic probe so that the probe can attach to it in the heating dish in the laboratory. But it does not stand in the real world.

From the piece:

“At Dartmouth the decision was to use a test, P.C.R., for polymerase chain reaction. It is a molecular test that, until recently, was confined to molecular biology laboratories.” [ed – for “diagnosing” Aids, Bird Flu, Sars, etc.]

“[E]ach laboratory may do them [the tests] in its own way … their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

And so, an Epidemic was invented, says the Times, and hundreds of people were drugged, and thousands were given vaccines, for a disease that was not there.

From the piece:

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time.”

So, I’ll ask. Do you think it could happen on a larger scale? For example, with an entire continent of poor, starving people? Or in a ghettoized, and historically hated, isolated, stigmatized and marginalized community in the US or Europe?

For the record, I do think so. I think that’s exactly what has happened. And I think we’re terrified and loathe to look into it deeply.